Censorship

Chinese censorship in America

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship China on by

The other day I found a report by PEN America called “Made in Hollywood, Censored by Beijing.” There’s no visible date on it, but there are references to 2023, so it’s either recent or recently revised. It goes into detail about how American movie makers bend to the Chinese government’s will. It’s not the threat of arrest or property seizure that impels them, but economic and social pressure. “The Chinese Communist Party, in fact, holds major sway over whether a Hollywood movie will be profitable or not — and studio executives know it.”

Well-known actors can be affected even by what they say and do outside movies.
(more…)

Banning book bans in Illinois

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged books Illinois law libraries on by

Illinois has enacted a law which many articles have characterized as “outlawing book bans.” More precisely:

Illinois public libraries that restrict or ban materials because of “partisan or doctrinal” disapproval will be ineligible for state funding as of Jan. 1, 2024, when the new law goes into effect.

Here’s the full text. It encourages libraries to adopt the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights.” This sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but it may accomplish less than expected and have unintended consequences.
(more…)

The thug’s veto in Lancaster, New Hampshire

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship libraries New Hampshire on by

The Weeks Memorial Library in Lancaster, a small town in northern New Hampshire, was going to put on a “drag queen story hour,” then it cancelled the event because of alleged threats of violence. A WMUR news article says,

Linda Hutchins, board chair of Weeks Memorial Library, said the library has a non-discrimination policy when it comes to renting out their room, but when they started receiving violent threats and word of multiple protests, safety became a top priority.

However, an NHPR news article makes it doubtful whether these threats were real:
(more…)

CUNY misrepresents American freedoms

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship education law on by

The bogus claim that there’s a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment of the US Constitution usually comes from a left-wing position, but anyone can use it. The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York claimed that the speech made by student Fatima Mousa Mohammed at the May 12 Law School commencement constituted “hate speech.” The statement asserts that “hate speech … should not be confused with free speech and has no place on our campuses or in our city, our state or our nation.” Presumably the university plans or has already engaged in some action penalizing the speaker, though I haven’t been able to find out what it did or is going to do.

This case is particularly interesting because it doesn’t follow the usual script of people holding a left-wing view claiming that positions they don’t like are unprotected “hate speech.” According to an article on FIRE’s website, Ms. Mohammed “accused Israel of ‘indiscriminately raining bullets and bombs’ on Palestinians, criticized CUNY for working with the ‘fascist’ New York City Police Department and military, and expressed disdain for ‘capitalism, racism, imperialism and Zionism.'” Those sound more like the positions of someone who’d fling “hate speech” accusations rather than being on the receiving end.
(more…)

Fayneese Miller’s obsession 3

This entry was posted in Censorship Writing and tagged censorship education Hamline religion on by

The situation at Hamline University, which I blogged about a few days ago, has gotten stranger. President Fayneese Miller’s recent statements suggest that the non-renewal of the contract of a lecturer for including Islamic art in an art course is the manifestation of some strange obsession.

The lowliness of the lecturer plays an important role in Miller’s raving. She emphasizes repeatedly that the lecturer was a mere “adjunct instruction” and insists that “the adjunct instructor chosen to teach the course in art history did not ‘lose her job.'” Easy for a university president to say. Not so easy to hear when you’re told you aren’t coming back next term. Miller adds that “the decision not to offer her another class was made at the unit level and in no way reflects on her ability to adequately teach the class.” That’s exactly the issue. A fully competent lecturer isn’t coming back, not because of any problems with her teaching, but because she didn’t follow the commandments of a conservative branch of a religion. But defending a lowly lecturer against a university president’s wrath is, says the university president, a “privileged reaction.”
(more…)